> Ads are an infection vector and privacy leak.
Both of these are undeniably true about specific ads, but surely not the genre of advertising in general? I think that magazine ads, for example, are neither infection vectors nor privacy leaks. To the extent that these can be audited, surely preventing malware distribution and respecting my privacy are part of what should be included in the definition of 'acceptable'. (If they are not included, then I would argue that that is a failure of a specific implementation of "acceptable ads", not of the notion of acceptability itself.)
> It's like concept of "acceptable groping" from an HR department. Completely at odds with their stated intent and standard ethics.
While that is a potent analogy, I would argue that there's a difference: most of us agree that there is no level of groping that's acceptable; whereas I _think_ that, even among those of us who would like a web with no ads, the position that there is no level of advertising that's acceptable is extreme.
> Sorry, I'm now using uBlock Origin and/or Safari content blockers. I'll go with those organizations who don't have any interest/stake in permitting ads.
I agree, and don't mean to argue against those options. For what it's worth, I also use µBlock; I left ABP over what I perceived as conflicts of interest, and I am not interested in going back. Nonetheless, since some people do use it, surely this divestiture from a conflict of interest is a good thing, even if it's not perfect.